JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure. 5 dated 21-12-92, passed by the Chief Engineer, C.A.D., Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Bikaner, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed and he was ordered to be retired with immediate effect and his date of birth dated 5.12.1931, entered in the Service Book, was taken as a correct one. The petitioner has, also, challenged the consequential order Annexure. 3 dated 26.12.92, passed by the Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Division, C.A.D., Suratgarh, by which the petitioner was relieved from the government service with effect from 30.12.92. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that the order passed by the Chief Engineer, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant, is not a speaking order.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents as a Driver on work-charge basis on 6.3.1958. He continued in the service with the respondents. In the Service Book of the petitioner, his date of birth was entered as 5.12.1939. On 21.9.90, the petitioner was asked to produce proof regarding his date of birth as the facts stated in the Service Book of the petitioner have not been verified by producing any certificate to this effect. He was, also, asked to submit an affidavit duly verified as well as the Matriculation Certificate alongwith the Driving License. On an enquiry held by the respondents, it was found that the Service Book of the petitioner was tampered with and the date of birth recorded in the Service Book as 5.12.1930 was changed to 5.12.1939. The petitioner was, therefore, retired by the respondents w.e.f. 30.12.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation, treating his date of birth as 5.12.1930. The petitioner challenged the order of his retirement before this Court on the ground that before passing the order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the date of birth of the petitioner was changed without hearing him. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner, was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after supplying him a copy of the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. After the decision of the writ petition, the petitioner was again served with a notice to show cause why the report of the Stale Forensic Science Laboratory may not be accepted and his date of birth may not be treated as 5.12.1930. The petitioner filed reply to the Show Cause Notice and raised certain objections. The Chief Engineer thereafter, passed an order dated 25.12.1992(Annexure. 5), which has been placed on record. In pursuance to this order Annexure. 5, the Assistant Engineer, vide his order Annexure. 3 dated 26.12.92, relieved the petitioner from service with effect from 30.12.1992. It is against these two order Annexure. 5 and Annexure. 3 that (he petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner raised several contentions in reply to the Show Cause Notice. He, also, challenged the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, but none of the objections, raised by the petitioner, has been considered by the respondents and the order Annexure. 5 as well as the order Annexure. 3 have been passed by the respondents. No objections, raised by the petitioner, has been dealt-with and the Chief Engineer passed only a two-lined order. The submission made by the petitioner in reply to the query made by the respondents should have been dealt with by the respondents while deciding the appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, also, raised other grounds, which are not necessary to be referred here because the present writ petition can be disposed of only on this count. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the orders Annexure. 5 and Annexure. 3. His contention is that the controversy involved in the present case was whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.12.1930 or 5.12.1939, and that dispute set at rest by the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, wherein it has been made clear that the record has been tampered-with and the digit ‘0’ has been changed to digit ‘9’ and the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to controvert this allegation and, therefore, in view of the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the copy of which was given to the petitioner, no detailed order was required to be passed.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant is a quasi-judicial order. A reasoned order is desirable condition of a judicial disposal. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and it, also, minimises and excludes arbitrariness of the authority concerned. A reasoned order, also, enables the appellate and supervisory Court to judge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the lower authority. On the basis of the reasons given by it, the Court can judge the validity of the order and can see whether while passing the order the subordinate authority acted on extraneous or irrelevant consideration or not. Though no particular form or scale of reasons can be prescribed but the extent and the nature depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The authority hearing the appeal is expected to give reasons dealing with all the objections and submissions made by the appellant so that the legality and the correctness of the order can be judged by the supervisory Court in the right perspective on the basis of the reasons given by the lower authority while deciding the appeal in the case. The order passed by the learned Chief Engineer in the present case does not contain any reasons why he did not agree with the submissions made by the appellant or why he considered it not proper to correct the dale of birth of the petitioner. The Chief Engineer, while deciding the appeal, was expected to give reasons for his not agreeing with the submissions made by the appellant-petitioner. The order passed by the learned Chief Engineer is laconic one and does not contain any reasons and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. In the result, the appeal, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The orders Annexure. 5 passed by the Chief Engineer as well as the consequential order Annexure. 3 passed by the Assistant Engineer, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside and the Chief Engineer is directed to decide the appeal, filed by the petitioner-appellant, in accordance with law giving reasons, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
